May His Shadow Fall Upon You (talk | contribs) →President Zelensky's Position in the Lede: Replying to SPECIFICO (using reply-link) |
|||
Line 221: | Line 221: | ||
::::::I gave you a mild rebuke for being snide. I'm not going to respond to you any more in this thread. If you'll give a close read to what I said you may discover its meaning. [[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 01:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC) |
::::::I gave you a mild rebuke for being snide. I'm not going to respond to you any more in this thread. If you'll give a close read to what I said you may discover its meaning. [[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 01:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::::::{{u|SPECIFICO}}, that's fine. I'm not here to "discover meaning" in anyone's post. I just want policy based points and if you don't have any then your time is probably better spent elsewhere. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">[[User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You|May His Shadow Fall Upon You]] ● [[User_talk:May His Shadow Fall Upon You|📧]]</span> 02:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC) |
:::::::{{u|SPECIFICO}}, that's fine. I'm not here to "discover meaning" in anyone's post. I just want policy based points and if you don't have any then your time is probably better spent elsewhere. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">[[User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You|May His Shadow Fall Upon You]] ● [[User_talk:May His Shadow Fall Upon You|📧]]</span> 02:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::::::It's not a significant point, so it doesn't belong in the lead. It also lacks credibility, so it would be a violation of [[WP:NPOV]] to include in the lead without explaining that Zelensky had to say that because he was put on the spot and depends on continued assistance from this administration.[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-sources-ukraines-zelensky-was-feeling-pressure-from-trump-administration] - [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 13:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Curation time == |
== Curation time == |
Revision as of 13:22, 24 November 2019
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
US and Ukraine mutual assistance treaty
In an article titled "There Is No Basis to Impeach Trump Over Ukraine", Adrian Norman cited the existence of a "Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters". See List of treaties.
Norman then wrote, "It's against this backdrop that the now-infamous July phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky should be seen for what it was—a perfectly legal and ethical conversation seeking cooperation on an investigation into corruption under a juridical agreement that was forged 21 years prior". [1]
It looks to me like this treaty should be cited in the Wikipedia article titled "Trump–Ukraine scandal". Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- You would need to find better sources than an Adrian Norman opinion piece. I'm not aware that major news publications have reported that the treaty somehow excuses Trump's attempt to extort the Ukraine government. - MrX 🖋 03:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with MrX — The Epoch Times is not a reliable source, an Adrian Norman opinion piece in the Epoch Times is not a reliable source, and fringy pundit Gregg Jarrett is not a reliable source. I've reverted this addition. Let's keep this article fairly focused on the actual testimony and on high-equality expert analysis/commentary, which exists in abundance. Neutralitytalk 05:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Will you refer to Robert B. Charles as a "fringe commentator"?
- See "Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters"[2]
- "Robert B. Charles served in the Reagan and Bush 41 White Houses, as Assistant Secretary of State under Colin Powell, and counsel to the US House National Security subcommittee for five years; a former litigator, he taught law at Harvard University’s Extension School, recently authored “Eagles and Evergreens” (2018), and consults in Washington DC".
- Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Draft Timeline - comments invited
At the risk of violating WP:NOTFORUM, can I just check my uinderstanding of the timeline here?
Please tell me if I've missed anything or got it wrong? Guy (help!) 18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
It might also be worth bearing in mind that the Yanukovych government was in favour of closer ties with Russia while the population wanted to move to the EU. That's what triggered the Euromaidan protests. When Yanukovych fled Ukraine, Putin justified Russia's position by arguing that it was a coup dressed up as a revolution. That led to the war in Donbass, the shooting down of MH17 and the annexation of Crimea. Putin seems to have seen Euromaidan as an American plot to undermine one of his allies and, by extension, him. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Suggested addition: |
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2019
Under the heading Whistleblower rules and hearsay in the section on Conspiracy Theories: "... Trump's claim was based on an article from The Federalist which incorrectly stated ..." the link for The Federalist leads to Wikipedia's article on The Federalist Papers. It should instead link to the article on The Federalist online magazine. This is easily confirmed by following the reference to the PolitiFact article which references The Federalist website. Homunx (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
extended-protected edit Request
Add {{current}} to the page 2600:8803:7800:2E20:A563:36E0:93F:630D (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Add David Holmes to closed door hearings
On November 15, David Holmes, a US Department of State foreign service officer who works at the US embassy in Ukraine, and serves as an aide to BIll Taylor, testified in a closed door session before three house committees that he and two unnamed aides overheard a phone conversation between Ambassador Sondland and President Trump, while at a restaurant in Kiev, and immediately following a private meeting between President Zelensky and Sondland, where Trump asked Sondland about whether or not the Ukrainian President had agreed to investigate the Bidens.[1]
References
Volker public testimony
JoeScarce added the following without prior discussion, I am not comfortable with the sourcing.
- Volker and Morrison public testimony
- Also on November 19, former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker and former National Security presidential adviser on Europe and Russia Tim Morrison gave a public testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives. In his testimony, Volker recanted his deposition denial of seeing no indication of that Trump had conditioned a White House meeting and military assistance for Ukraine on a promise from the country's president to investigate Trump's political rivals.[1] Asked why he recanted, Volker stated "I have learned many things" since the previous closed-door hearing on October 3, 2019.[1] During his testimony, Morrison stated that Sondland confirmed to him that there was indeed a quid pro quo for US aid to Ukraine and that Sondland informed Morrison of this following a September 1 conversation he had and Ukraine official Andriy Yermak.[2]
References
In fact I think there is a fair bit more about the testimony that could be written about the day's testimonies (though I hope we can avoid anything about Vindman schooling Nunes on forms of address, or any of the personal attacks from Republicans), but this could be read as accusing a witness of perjury in violation of WP:BLP so it needs some discussion I think. Guy (help!) 09:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- The Politico article is an analysis of Volker's prepared opening statement and does not cover the actual testimony so it is not an optimal source about Volker's testimony. We should more recent sources, but if we say "Volker said X in a closed setting and later revised the statement saying Y", and X and Y are robustly sourced – and the content adheres to V, NOR, NPOV, and so on – there is no BLP violation.
- The Vox piece is what mainstream publications would an editorial or analysis and should not be used for stating facts in Wikipedia's voice. What do major newspapers and other mainstream sources say?
- On the process issues, you have both breached 1RR and it was probably not a good to idea to use rollback. Politrukki (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Politrukki, What RS have said so far is largely nothing, which is why I brought it here rather than simply fixing the source (I tried several different searches this morning). I agree it would be fine if supported in these terms by RS, but, as you note, it isn't, in fact, as phrased it's WP:SYN. We need to be super conservative with BLPs, especially these ones. I will confess that I find edit summaries like "make me go to the noticeboard" needlessly aggressive. The source actually says:
- {{quotation:In perhaps one of the most glaring updates to his earlier testimony, Volker said that during a July 10 meeting at the White House with top Ukrainian officials, he now recalled that Sondland made a "generic comment about investigations" and that "all of us thought it was inappropriate."
- In fact, Volker told lawmakers flatly during his closed-door deposition on Oct. 3 that investigations were not discussed at that meeting — testimony that was contradicted by other officials in the room. Rather, Volker said the meeting went poorly because the Ukrainians delivered a dry, bureaucratic presentation that didn't help give their American counterparts a clear picture of the political dynamic in Ukraine facing its new president, Volodymyr Zelensky.}}
- I think it's reasonable to challenge the representation of this text in the edit. I have no objection to its inclusion in more NPOV terms and with additional sourcing (but not the video, I am not a fan of sourcing things to "watch the damn video"). Guy (help!) 15:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
You specifically asked on the other talk page to include a more robust source. Here it is.[4]v] Please note that Volker made this perfectly clear in his own words.JoeScarce (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
We have a good neutral summary with multiple RS references at the Volker article. Why not just copy it here? Or if people prefer, there is wording that I proposed, extensively quoting him, at the Volker talk page. And JoeScarce, we will not be using the video as a source. Our rule is to use WP:secondary sources, not WP:primary sources - and not to add any interpretation beyond what is done by neutral secondary sources. Of which we now have plenty, half a dozen at least. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be happy with either the wording at Kurt Volker or the suggestion at Talk:Kurt Volker. And I generally dislike pointing to videos as sources, for accessibility and bandwidth reasons. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I am very satisfied with the page's new editing and wouldn't have included, or even mentioned, the CBS News Youtube video if the Volker and Morrison testimony was kept in the article in the first place. Thank you.JoeScarce (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- JoeScarce, the lesson here is as per my comment on your talk page. Stick close to the sources, and use the best sources you can get. If all you have is Politico then exclude it. Multiple sources are preferred for controversial content. Guy (help!) 01:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I strongly back multiple sources as well.JoeScarce (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
add as-of-yet unreleased $35 million in military aid to Ukraine as part of the aid package at the center of Trump impeachment proceedings ?
- million in Pentagon cash for Ukraine, part of the aid package at the center of Trump impeachment proceedings, is yet to be released
- https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-11-19/documents-show-nearly-40-million-in-ukraine-aid-delayed-despite-white-house-assurances
- Ukraine Is Still Waiting on $35 Million of U.S. Military Aid, Says Report
X1\ (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
"As Sondland testified, a misleading Ukraine story spread among conservatives on social media"
Collins, Ben; Zadrozny, Brandy (November 20, 2019). "As Sondland testified, a misleading Ukraine story spread among conservatives on social media". NBC News. Retrieved November 20, 2019.
- A misleading claim about the head of the Ukrainian energy company at the heart of the House impeachment inquiry went viral across conservative pockets of social media Wednesday, receiving hundreds of thousands of retweets and shares from some of the president's most ardent online supporters.
Worth keeping an eye out in case the ZeroHedge/QAnon story gets pushed on here, probably. XOR'easter (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Fascinating. soibangla (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I suggest linking the Morrison and Sondland testimonies
It would be very interesting to include, as Morrison's testimony mainly involved Sondland. Sondland also testified today.JoeScarce (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- But Sondland's, much more prominent, did not mainly involve Morrison. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you mentioning that. Maybe we should just include them separately then.JoeScarce (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
President Zelensky's Position in the Lede
I added the following to the lede: "However, President Zelensky denied that he was pressured by Trump." [[5]]. This is cited elsewhere in the body of the article.
It was reverted by XOR'easter (talk · contribs) with the edit summary: "obvious politician temporizing is obvious; not lede-worthy"
However, as per WP:LEDE, The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish the context, and explain why the topic is notable, all of which should be established in the first sentences. It should summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.
Clearly, President Zelensky's opinion on whether he was pressured is absolutely an important point in an article which deals with whether President Zelensky was pressured. XOR'easter's inferences/assumptions about Zelensky's motivations are not pertinent. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Including it in the body is adequate. I have yet to see a reliable source saying that his "everything is fine, we're all fine here, how are you" statement (paraphrased) should be taken at face value. Inserting it into the lede would push the POV that it should be. XOR'easter (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- There is no "POV" being pushed by stating that this is what Zelensky said. There is no "point of view" to a simple, factual reporting that Zelensky denied being pressured. The fact that you, as an individual editor, do not believe that Zelensky was truthful does not mean that it shouldn't be included. President Zelensky's opinion on whether he was pressured, in an article about whether he was pressured, is unquestionably important and relevant. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- In addition to what I wrote above, I also wanted to recall WP:TRUTH. Specifically,
Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, previously defined the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth". "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.
Believing that Zelensky was "temporizing" is not a reason to remove a verifiable statement from an article. It is not necessary that you believe he's telling the truth, but rather that it's a verifiable statement made in reliable sources. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)There is no "point of view" to a simple, factual reporting that Zelensky denied being pressured.
Which is why there's no problem including it in the article body. But the selection and presentation of items ofsimple, factual reporting
can indeed be POV-pushing. XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)- @XOR'easter: Can you explain how it's "POV Pushing" to include Zelensky's statement on whether Trump pressured him in the lede of an article about Trump pressuring Zelensky? Please cite to the part of WP:NPOV that you're referring to specifically. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 18:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- RS and now witnesses discuss Zelensky's public statements, including that one, as the calculated actions of a head of state under duress who was attempting to defuse a threat from Trump. Do you think he was voluntarily going to make a public announcement to pursue Giuliani's "investigatons" of his own free accord? RS do not present the matter anything like that way. The juxtaposition of your proposed "no pressure" -- out of its own context but in the surrounding lead content -- is SYNTH. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- WP:CONTEXTMATTERS -
The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.
The best source for a statement is the person who made it. Speculation about what Zelensky "really" meant, even if made in an otherwise reliable source, is not an appropriate source for trumping (no pun intended) what Zelensky said. It's a fact that Zelensky said what he said and speculation that he may not have meant it is not enough to nix that from the lede. In any event, WP:SYNTH does not apply. As per WP:SYNTH:Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
There is only one source that I added, which was Zelensky himself. Therefore, it's not synthesis. Really, there's no policy-based argument for keeping this out of the lede. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 18:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)- Well, if you're claiming that a primary source, "what he really said" trumps RS contextualization, that's incorrect. And it's always going to be a single additional sentence/source that triggers SYNTH. It doesn't need to be one editor concatenating and adding both parts of the SYNTH. So your second point is incorrect as well. I suggest you try to flesh out and balance the article text about Zelensky's reactions and then see what is lead-worthy. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- No, what I'm saying is that it's an objective fact that Zelensky made this statement. It's an "important point" as per WP:LEDE because this article concerns whether Zelensky was pressured and Zelensky said that he was not, in fact, pressured. People have speculated that Zelensky was not telling the truth. My point is that this speculation is just that -- speculation -- and is not a reason to exclude Zelensky's statement as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Speculation is not contextualization, and as CONTEXTMATTERS indicates, just because a source is generally reliable does not necessarily mean that it's reliable on this particular point - or at the very least, that it is somehow more reliable than Zelensky's own statements. I'm frankly confused as to your WP:SYNTH claim. What do you claim is being synthesized? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 22:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not going to repeat myself. See whether you can garner any support for your view. I provided a suggestion that would improve the article and might end up addressing the events you wish to describe in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with SPECIFICO - it should not go into the lead. She gives you some good advice about how to handle this and you should follow it IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'll probably open up an RFC on it. I think it's surreal that Zelensky's position on whether he was pressured is being kept out of the lede on an article about Zelensky being pressured but here we go I suppose. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 11:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not going to repeat myself. See whether you can garner any support for your view. I provided a suggestion that would improve the article and might end up addressing the events you wish to describe in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- No, what I'm saying is that it's an objective fact that Zelensky made this statement. It's an "important point" as per WP:LEDE because this article concerns whether Zelensky was pressured and Zelensky said that he was not, in fact, pressured. People have speculated that Zelensky was not telling the truth. My point is that this speculation is just that -- speculation -- and is not a reason to exclude Zelensky's statement as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Speculation is not contextualization, and as CONTEXTMATTERS indicates, just because a source is generally reliable does not necessarily mean that it's reliable on this particular point - or at the very least, that it is somehow more reliable than Zelensky's own statements. I'm frankly confused as to your WP:SYNTH claim. What do you claim is being synthesized? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 22:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well, if you're claiming that a primary source, "what he really said" trumps RS contextualization, that's incorrect. And it's always going to be a single additional sentence/source that triggers SYNTH. It doesn't need to be one editor concatenating and adding both parts of the SYNTH. So your second point is incorrect as well. I suggest you try to flesh out and balance the article text about Zelensky's reactions and then see what is lead-worthy. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- WP:CONTEXTMATTERS -
- RS and now witnesses discuss Zelensky's public statements, including that one, as the calculated actions of a head of state under duress who was attempting to defuse a threat from Trump. Do you think he was voluntarily going to make a public announcement to pursue Giuliani's "investigatons" of his own free accord? RS do not present the matter anything like that way. The juxtaposition of your proposed "no pressure" -- out of its own context but in the surrounding lead content -- is SYNTH. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- @XOR'easter: Can you explain how it's "POV Pushing" to include Zelensky's statement on whether Trump pressured him in the lede of an article about Trump pressuring Zelensky? Please cite to the part of WP:NPOV that you're referring to specifically. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 18:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- I support inclusion of this in the lead. His position had never changed and he’s reiterated it several times. It’s important in an article called Trump Ukraine controversy to include the Ukrainian (ie the President of Ukraine) position. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Mr Ernie, I know, right? You'd think it would be self-evident that the Ukrainian President's position in an article called "Trump-Ukraine Scandal" would be important as per WP:LEDE. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 11:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest you review the dozen witnesses' testimony and RS reporting of it for prospective article text on how the Ukranians viewed the US' failure to deliver the legally mandated military assistance. SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, Yes. Don't listen to the Ukrainians on the topic of how the Ukrainians viewed it. Clearly, these sources which have not communicated with the President of Ukraine are a far better source than the President of Ukraine when it comes to how the President of Ukraine saw the interaction. (Do you see how bizarre this sounds?) May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 19:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- What I see is a rude and unresponsive reply and a failed attempt at irony, humour, or some other unhelpful rhetorical affectation. Read the testimony and RS summaries and comments on it. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- I’m not sure that potentially partisan US press outlets know better than the President of Ukraine about his position. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, The standard set in WP:LEDE is that "important points" should be contained in the lede. In an article called "Trump-Ukraine Scandal", certainly the position of Ukraine as articulated by its President should be contained in the lede as an "important point." Especially given that the entire issue here, as we describe in the first couple sentences of the article, is whether Trump pressured Zelensky. There's no way to say that Zelensky's statement on this is unimportant. Therefore, it should be in the lede.
- Your argument is perhaps better suited for something like Facebook than Wikipedia. I understand that you believe, in your opinion as an individual, that perhaps Zelensky is lying or is not credible on this point. Okay, I respect that, but your personal POV on this does not render Zelensky's comment unimportant or not worthy of inclusion in the lede.
- I still have not seen a policy-based argument that this should not be in the lede. WP:IDONTLIKEIT (or WP:IDONTBELIEVEIT) is not a good reason. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 01:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- I gave you a mild rebuke for being snide. I'm not going to respond to you any more in this thread. If you'll give a close read to what I said you may discover its meaning. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, that's fine. I'm not here to "discover meaning" in anyone's post. I just want policy based points and if you don't have any then your time is probably better spent elsewhere. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 02:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- It's not a significant point, so it doesn't belong in the lead. It also lacks credibility, so it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to include in the lead without explaining that Zelensky had to say that because he was put on the spot and depends on continued assistance from this administration.[6] - MrX 🖋 13:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, that's fine. I'm not here to "discover meaning" in anyone's post. I just want policy based points and if you don't have any then your time is probably better spent elsewhere. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 02:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- I gave you a mild rebuke for being snide. I'm not going to respond to you any more in this thread. If you'll give a close read to what I said you may discover its meaning. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- What I see is a rude and unresponsive reply and a failed attempt at irony, humour, or some other unhelpful rhetorical affectation. Read the testimony and RS summaries and comments on it. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, Yes. Don't listen to the Ukrainians on the topic of how the Ukrainians viewed it. Clearly, these sources which have not communicated with the President of Ukraine are a far better source than the President of Ukraine when it comes to how the President of Ukraine saw the interaction. (Do you see how bizarre this sounds?) May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 19:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Curation time
As always with developing stories, there's a tendency to add each new detail as it arrives. I'm going to see if I can take out some that has turned out to be less significant, and some that is duplicative of Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in an attempt to make the article more manageable. I'm proposing something similar there.
What I'd like to do:
- Reorder the lead somewhat, so that we describe the allegations first, then why they are a problem, then the way they came to light. It's a little disjointed right now.
- Move the last two paragraphs of Background to a later section describing the administration's reactions, for clarity.
- Move the section on Donald Trump and prior indication of willingness to accept interference - this is not core to the scandal but just adds colour.
- Prune some of the details of early shots in the battle (e.g. Rand Paul asserting that the WB is a "material witness" (we now know they are not) and so on. Yes, noise about the scandal is a thing, but we should be describing the scandal more than the noise, right?
- Try to copyedit Communications with Ukrainian officials and maybe make one or two subsections, as this is a tough read right now.
- Move the withholding sections higher up as they are the scandal.
- Drastically prune the WB complaint sections, as they are now almost entirely redundant to subsequent testimony.
- Prune the contacts with other governments as redundant to Russia investigation origins counter-narrative (maybe there should be a split-out of the Durham inquiry but it's not so big right now).
- Remove the sections on the individual testimonies, as redundant to the sections in Impeachment, and instead form a coherent picture of the course of events noting who corroborates which.
- The Reactions section is enormous and blurs the distinctions between reactions to the scandal and reactions to impeachment, so should probably be split out.
- Much of the Conspiracy theories section is redundant to Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal and can probably go or at least be summarised.
My aim would be to reduce redundancy between this article and Impeachment, and make the narrative more coherent. At the same time I would prune quite a bit of the redundant content there about the scandal, and merge it in here if it's not already covered.
If people think this is a good idea, my plan would be to slap an {{under construction}} tag on, some time tomorrow morning UK time, with the intent of completing it so as to minimise conflicts by 8am Eastern.
What do people think? Guy (help!) 15:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- These generally sound like good ideas. Not everything that seemed important a month ago still is. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- I support anything that make the article more readable and subject more comprehensible. Some of these ideas have been floated before, without much objection. Pruning excess detail is always good, and rearranging content to fit the timeline is good. Go for it. - MrX 🖋 12:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2019
When discussing "alternative narratives" of "false narratives" (conspiracy theories) in Wikipedia articles I think it would be useful to clearly state that concerns exist over the "facts" stated and, whenever possible, reference should be made to the source of these "narratives". For example, the article mentions conspiracy theories without providing information about their source. Some of the sources (from immediate to less obvious) include Sean Hannity, Yuriy Lutsenko, and Russian State Agencies.
I also have and EDIT REQUEST affecting the BACKGROUND heading:
The article reads, "… to investigate Joe Biden, Trump's political opponent in the 2020 presidential election, as well as his son Hunter Biden and the company CrowdStrike, and to discuss these matters with Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr"
This is a complicated list that would be more clear either as a series of subordinate clauses separated by semi-colons (you left out Burisma in your list / I include it in mine) or as a series of bullets (each representing a subordinate clause). For example: "… to investigate: Burisma Holdings, the holding company for a group of energy exploration and production companies based in Kyiv; Joe Biden, Trump's political opponent in the 2020 presidential election, as well as his son Hunter Biden who was on the Board of Burisma; and, CrowdStrike, the cyber-security technology company engaged to investigate the hack of DNC servers. He also asked President Zelensky to discuss these matters with Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr" Agondontor (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Devin Nunes involvement
According to some sources,
"The attorney for an indicted associate of President Donald Trump's personal lawyer says his client is willing to tell Congress that Rep. Devin Nunes, R-California, met with Ukraine's former top prosecutor about investigating the activities of Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden."
— [7]
This could be pretty significant. We should add something to this article soon. - MrX 🖋 12:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nunes denies that and said he will be suing CNN. It seems that story comes from Fusion GPS and several other outlets passed on it. And anyways is Parnas a reputable witness? We need to be extremely careful with this. I would say leave it out until any hard evidence emerges one way or the other. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- "Suing CNN" is irrelevant. I think MrX's sources are reliable and sufficient to put something in the article. "Fusion GPS" is irrelevant. We do not have enough information for more than a sentence or two at this juncture. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- I’m not doubting that those outlets are reporting that. The point is the claims that Parnas are making are unverified and could be BLP violations, insinuating something about Nunes that may be untrue. You’ve worked hard to keep similar smears out of Hunter Biden’s article so I’m surprised to see you taking this approach here. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- (ec) I'm not suggesting that we say that Nunes was trying to help Trump by pressuring the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens, but we should consider including something attributed to the source of the information as well as Nunes' denial and the pending lawsuit.- MrX 🖋 15:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- The claims about Hunter Biden are either false or irrelevant to the articles in which the insinuations were attempted. In fact, most were determined to be false by RS. The RS coverage of this is appropriately couched, and Nunes (as a public figure) is BLP-tougher than private citizen Hunter Biden. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- The claim about Nunes may also be false. There is no evidence out there yet, and in fact the claim comes from someone recently arrested for corrupt behavior. Until there is any substantiated evidence, the claim violates BLP and should be omitted. Who cares what claims someone arrested for corruption is willing to make? He could say or claim anything - we need evidence and verification. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think a simple statement within the article about what Parnas has suggested he would be willing to testify to a la "Parnas via his attorney has suggested that he would be willing to corroborate the testimony of key witnesses, and that he was party to further involvement with members of congress". If required can then name Nunes and the couple of other named Congress / senators, but I would shy away from it at the moment given it is a relatively unclear statement as to whether there is any relationship to the current investigation rather than just a general smear (although it would almost certainly raise the spectre of a clear CoI between Nunes and the Impeachment process). Koncorde (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Mr Ernie, yes, "The claim about Nunes may also be false.", but according to WP:PUBLICFIGURE that is irrelevant. We have multiple RS, so we should just docuement it and include any denials, if those denials appear in RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ernie, remember, the journalists have already done your "evidence and verification" thing, and all accounts give appropriate attribution. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- It will be interesting to see how deep Nunes is in this, given his unwavering defense of Trump in all situations. I must say, this is quite stunning from an elected official:
"When CNN asked Nunes for comment on these new allegations, Nunes refused to respond, telling the outlet, “I don’t talk to you in this lifetime or the next lifetime. At any time. On any question.”"
— [11]- - MrX 🖋 17:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well to be fair that’s been his position regarding cnn for a while now. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Interesting. Is it in his Bio article? Media relations section?
- I just took a look at the Nunes article. Looks like it could use some updates to reflect the current state of mainstream knowledge. SPECIFICO talk 18:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, I don't know if it's in Putin's bio, or if it would be significant there (disinformation is pretty much SOP for Russian intelligence, and he's ex-KGB, which does not stand for Kindly Guardians Brigade). Guy (help!) 18:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- I saw it in a *gasp* Breitbart article I think. So no it’s not in his article. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well to be fair that’s been his position regarding cnn for a while now. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- The claim about Nunes may also be false. There is no evidence out there yet, and in fact the claim comes from someone recently arrested for corrupt behavior. Until there is any substantiated evidence, the claim violates BLP and should be omitted. Who cares what claims someone arrested for corruption is willing to make? He could say or claim anything - we need evidence and verification. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- The claims about Hunter Biden are either false or irrelevant to the articles in which the insinuations were attempted. In fact, most were determined to be false by RS. The RS coverage of this is appropriately couched, and Nunes (as a public figure) is BLP-tougher than private citizen Hunter Biden. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- "Suing CNN" is irrelevant. I think MrX's sources are reliable and sufficient to put something in the article. "Fusion GPS" is irrelevant. We do not have enough information for more than a sentence or two at this juncture. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm inclined not to include it at this time. "X's attorney says his client is willing to say" is a far cry from "X says". -- MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Especially if said client has a penchant for being corrupt and untruthful. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Mr Ernie, I am struggling to think which of the characters involved in this could be justly described as corrupt and untruthful. Other than those with vowels in their names. Guy (help!) 22:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- If Lev Parnas is willing to spill the beans, that's useful information for the investigators and for us. But, I agree with MelanieN that we should wait to see if he actually does come forward and make these allegations under penalty of perjury, rather than just having his lawyer tease us with bombshell revelations that may not be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Mr Ernie, I am struggling to think which of the characters involved in this could be justly described as corrupt and untruthful. Other than those with vowels in their names. Guy (help!) 22:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- To co-opt a certain highly-esteemed editor, let's wait 48 hours on this one. soibangla (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)